-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2010Anticonvulsant drugs have been used in the management of pain since the 1960s. The clinical impression is that they are useful for chronic neuropathic pain, especially... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anticonvulsant drugs have been used in the management of pain since the 1960s. The clinical impression is that they are useful for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning. Readers are referred to reviews of carbamazepine and gabapentin in T he Cochrane Library which replace the information on those drugs in this review. Other drugs remain unchanged at present in this review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of anticonvulsant drugs for pain management in clinical practice . Migraine and headache studies are excluded in this revision.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Randomised trials of anticonvulsants in acute, chronic or cancer pain were identified by MEDLINE (1966-1999), EMBASE (1994-1999), SIGLE (1980 to 1999) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL/CCTR) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 1999). In addition, 41 medical journals were hand searched. Additional reports were identified from the reference list of the retrieved papers, and by contacting investigators. Date of most recent search: September 1999.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials reporting the analgesic effects of anticonvulsant drugs in patients, with subjective pain assessment as either the primary or a secondary outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by two independent review authors, and trials were quality scored. Numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) were calculated from dichotomous data for effectiveness, adverse effects and drug-related study withdrawal, for individual studies and for pooled data.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-three trials of six anticonvulsants were considered eligible (1074 patients).The only placebo-controlled study in acute pain found no analgesic effect of sodium valproate.Three placebo-controlled studies of carbamazepine in trigeminal neuralgia had a combined NNT (95% confidence interval (CI)) for effectiveness of 2.5 (CI 2.0 to 3.4). A single placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin in post-herpetic neuralgia had an NNT of 3.2 (CI 2.4 to 5.0). For diabetic neuropathy NNTs for effectiveness were as follows: (one RCT for each drug) carbamazepine 2.3 (CI 1.6 to 3.8), gabapentin 3.8 (CI 2.4 to 8.7) and phenytoin 2.1 (CI 1.5 to 3.6).Numbers-needed-to-harm (NNHs) were calculated where possible by combining studies for each drug entity irrespective of the condition treated. The results were, for minor harm, carbamazepine 3.7 (CI 2.4 to 7.8), gabapentin 2.5 (CI 2.0 to 3.2), phenytoin 3.2 (CI 2.1 to 6.3). NNHs for major harm were not statistically significant for any drug compared with placebo.Phenytoin had no effect in irritable bowel syndrome, and carbamazepine little effect in post-stroke pain. Clonazepam was effective in one study of temporomandibular joint dysfunction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although anticonvulsants are used widely in chronic pain surprisingly few trials show analgesic effectiveness. Only one study identified considered cancer pain. There is no evidence that anticonvulsants are effective for acute pain. In chronic pain syndromes other than trigeminal neuralgia, anticonvulsants should be withheld until other interventions have been tried. While gabapentin is increasingly being used for neuropathic pain the evidence would suggest that it is not superior to carbamazepine.
Topics: Acute Disease; Amines; Anticonvulsants; Chronic Disease; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Humans; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 20091515
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001133.pub3 -
Wounds : a Compendium of Clinical... Feb 2024Although phenytoin's potential benefits in wound healing, pain relief, and infection control across various wound types have been previously reported, its use in wound...
BACKGROUND
Although phenytoin's potential benefits in wound healing, pain relief, and infection control across various wound types have been previously reported, its use in wound care remains limited.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a comprehensive review to assess the efficacy of topical phenytoin compared with standard and alternative treatments for different wound types.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The authors last searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, PubMed Central, and MEDLINE in June 2023. All English-language human RCTs and NRCTs from any time were included. The RoB 2 was used to assess quality of randomized trials, and the ROBINS-I was used to assess the quality of nonrandomized trials. Studies with a low risk of bias or some concerns in no more than 1 domain were included. Data collected and analyzed included wound type, interventions, sample size, outcome measures, and adverse effects.
RESULTS
The search yielded 101 studies, of which 17 RCTs and 8 NRCTs were eligible for inclusion. Of the included studies, 56% had a low risk of bias in all domains. The sample sizes varied between 20 and 130 (median, 60), with a total sample size of 1653 patients. Phenytoin improved wound healing in 17 of the 24 studies that evaluated it (71%), increased granulation tissue in 9 of the 10 studies that evaluated it (90%), provided analgesic effects in 7 of the 13 studies that evaluated it (54%), and inhibited bacterial contaminants in 6 of the 8 studies that evaluated it (75%). Adverse effects were rare (29%), minimal, and transient.
CONCLUSION
Phenytoin enhances wound healing and offers analgesic and antibacterial properties with minimal adverse effects. Further research is needed on optimal dosage of phenytoin, as well as frequency, delivery vehicles, and effects on other postoperative wounds.
BACKGROUND
Although phenytoin's potential benefits in wound healing, pain relief, and infection control across various wound types have been previously reported, its use in wound care remains limited.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a comprehensive review to assess the efficacy of topical phenytoin compared with standard and alternative treatments for different wound types.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The authors last searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, PubMed Central, and MEDLINE in June 2023. All English-language human RCTs and NRCTs from any time were included. The RoB 2 was used to assess quality of randomized trials, and the ROBINS-I was used to assess the quality of nonrandomized trials. Studies with a low risk of bias or some concerns in no more than 1 domain were included. Data collected and analyzed included wound type, interventions, sample size, outcome measures, and adverse effects.
RESULTS
The search yielded 101 studies, of which 17 RCTs and 8 NRCTs were eligible for inclusion. Of the included studies, 56% had a low risk of bias in all domains. The sample sizes varied between 20 and 130 (median, 60), with a total sample size of 1653 patients. Phenytoin improved wound healing in 17 of the 24 studies that evaluated it (71%), increased granulation tissue in 9 of the 10 studies that evaluated it (90%), provided analgesic effects in 7 of the 13 studies that evaluated it (54%), and inhibited bacterial contaminants in 6 of the 8 studies that evaluated it (75%). Adverse effects were rare (29%), minimal, and transient.
CONCLUSION
Phenytoin enhances wound healing and offers analgesic and antibacterial properties with minimal adverse effects. Further research is needed on optimal dosage of phenytoin, as well as frequency, delivery vehicles, and effects on other postoperative wounds.
Topics: Humans; Phenytoin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Wound Healing; Analgesics; Pain
PubMed: 38479432
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2010Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with a wide range of disturbance including persistent rule-breaking, criminality, substance misuse, unemployment,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with a wide range of disturbance including persistent rule-breaking, criminality, substance misuse, unemployment, homelessness and relationship difficulties.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the potential beneficial and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for people with AsPD.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to September 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2009, week 37), CINAHL (1982 to September 2009), PsycINFO (1872 to September 2009) , ASSIA (1987 to September 2009) , BIOSIS (1985 to September 2009), COPAC (September 2009), National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts (1970 to July 2008), Sociological Abstracts (1963 to September 2009), ISI-Proceedings (1981 to September 2009), Science Citation Index (1981 to September 2009), Social Science Citation Index (1981 to September 2009), SIGLE (1980 to April 2006), Dissertation Abstracts (September 2009), ZETOC (September 2009) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (September 2009).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Controlled trials in which participants with AsPD were randomly allocated to a pharmacological intervention and a placebo control condition. Two trials comparing one drug against another without a placebo control are reported separately.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently selected studies. Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated mean differences, with odds ratios for dichotomous data.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria involving 394 participants with AsPD. Data were available from four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. No study set out to recruit participants solely on the basis of having AsPD, and in only one study was the sample entirely of AsPD participants. Eight different drugs were examined in eight studies. Study quality was relatively poor. Inadequate reporting meant the data available were generally insufficient to allow any independent statistical analysis. The findings are limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators. All the available data were derived from unreplicated single reports. Only three drugs (nortriptyline, bromocriptine, phenytoin) were effective compared to placebo in terms of improvement in at least one outcome. Nortriptyline was reported in one study as superior for men with alcohol dependency on mean number of drinking days and on alcohol dependence, but not for severity of alcohol misuse or on the patient's or clinician's rating of drinking. In the same study, both nortriptyline and bromocriptine were reported as superior to placebo on anxiety on one scale but not on another. In one study, phenytoin was reported as superior to placebo on the frequency and intensity of aggressive acts in male prisoners with impulsive (but not premeditated) aggression. In the remaining two studies, both amantadine and desipramine were not superior to placebo for adults with opioid and cocaine dependence, and desipramine was not superior to placebo for men with cocaine dependence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The body of evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to allow any conclusion to be drawn about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder.
Topics: Adult; Aggression; Alcohol-Related Disorders; Amantadine; Antisocial Personality Disorder; Anxiety; Bromocriptine; Desipramine; Female; Humans; Male; Nortriptyline; Phenytoin; Psychotropic Drugs; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 20687091
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007667.pub2 -
Seizure Oct 2021Serotonin syndrome (SS) is a drug‑induced, potentially fatal, clinical syndrome resulting from drugs that have serotonergic properties. Several antiepileptic drugs... (Review)
Review
Serotonin syndrome (SS) is a drug‑induced, potentially fatal, clinical syndrome resulting from drugs that have serotonergic properties. Several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are known to have serotonergic properties and it can be hypothesized that such AEDs can cause SS. This study aims to review the literature on SS in patients receiving AEDs. We performed a systematic review of Scopus and MEDLINE/PUBMED for case reports and case series of SS where patients had received at least one AED at the onset of symptoms. The cases published in the English literature between 1 January 1991 and 1 April 2021 were included. Initial search identified 1263 articles of which 63 (76 patients) were included in the final analysis. Most of the included cases (53 cases, 70%) have been published in the last 10 years. The mean age of the 76 patients was 40.6 ± 17.8 years, and 51% of cases were females. These patients had been exposed to a total of 8 different types of AEDs. Valproic acid was the most common drug (29, 38%), followed by lamotrigine (22, 29%), gabapentin (16, 21%), pregabalin (seven, 9%), topiramate (five, 7%) and carbamazepine (two, 3%). There has been one case each with phenytoin and oxcarbazepine. Seven (9%) patients received more than one AEDs. Most patients (67, 88%) also received other serotoninergic agents. Only nine (12%) patients were on AEDs alone. The most common clinical condition for using AEDs was psychiatric disorders (36 patients, 47.3%), followed by migraine (17, 22.4%), other painful conditions (15, 19.7%), epilepsy (7, 9.2%), and perioperative conditions (8, 10.5%). Death was reported in two patients. We suggest that AEDs, because of their serotonergic properties, may induce SS, especially in patients who are on another serotonergic agent.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Oxcarbazepine; Serotonin Syndrome; Topiramate; Young Adult
PubMed: 34153897
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2021.06.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology...
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 29 September 2019: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One, three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence. Only five trials reported incidences of death. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability. We considered the evidence to be of low certainty for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-certainly evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Craniotomy; Humans; Isoxazoles; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 32343399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub5 -
Epilepsia 2003Prevention of posttraumatic epilepsy (PTE) is of primary importance to reduce the degree of functional morbidity following traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Prevention of posttraumatic epilepsy (PTE) is of primary importance to reduce the degree of functional morbidity following traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with TBI must be assessed separately in terms of prevention and control of provoked seizures (which include immediate and early posttraumatic seizures) and prevention of subsequent unprovoked seizures (late posttraumatic seizures or PTE).
METHODS
Potential mechanisms for prevention of epileptogenesis as well as reports and systematic reviews were evaluated to determine strategies and results of attempts to reduce or prevent the development of epilepsy following TBI.
RESULTS
In observational studies, after a period ranging from 6 months to 13 years, the proportion of cases developing seizures was 0-10% in patients receiving treatment compared to 2-50% in those who were left untreated. In randomized clinical trials, the difference between active treatment [phenytoin (PHT), phenobarbital, or carbamazepine (CBZ)] and placebo was less remarkable after a follow-up ranging from 3 to 60 months and was virtually lacking for the prevention of PTE. In a Cochrane systematic review of 890 patients from 10 RCTs assessing PHT or CBZ, the pooled relative risk (RR) for prevention of early seizures was 0.33 (95% CI 0.21-0.52). By contrast, the RR for prevention of late seizures was 1.28 (95% CI 0.90-1.81). Mortality and neurological disability were similar in the two treatment groups. The use of PHT was followed by an increased (nonsignificant) risk of skin rashes. In addition, cognitive performance was significantly affected by PHT in severely injured patients at 1 month and treatment withdrawal was followed by improvement in cognitive function.
CONCLUSIONS
The failure to influence the risk of PTE in studies of patients with TBI are similar to findings of meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on seizure prevention in other conditions, such as febrile seizures, cerebral malaria, craniotomy, and excessive alcohol intake. For these reasons, the prophylactic use of AEDs should be short-lasting and limited to the prevention of immediate and early seizures. Chronic treatment should be considered only after a diagnosis of PTE.
Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Brain Injuries; Epilepsy, Post-Traumatic; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 14511391
DOI: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.44.s10.1.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2007The aim of drug treatment for epilepsy is to prevent seizures without causing adverse effects. To achieve this, drug dosages need to be individualised. Measuring... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of drug treatment for epilepsy is to prevent seizures without causing adverse effects. To achieve this, drug dosages need to be individualised. Measuring antiepileptic drug levels in body fluids (therapeutic drug monitoring) is frequently used to optimise drug dosage for individual patients.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence regarding the effects of therapeutic drug monitoring upon outcomes in epilepsy.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (September 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2005) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2005). No language restrictions were imposed. We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles for additional reports of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing the outcomes of antiepileptic drug monotherapy guided by therapeutic drug monitoring with drug treatment without the aid of therapeutic drug monitoring.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We based this review on published aggregate data. The main outcomes measured were the proportions of patients achieving a 12-month remission from seizures, reporting adverse effects, and being withdrawn from the treatment they had been randomised to receive.
MAIN RESULTS
Only one study met the inclusion criteria for the review. In this open study, 180 patients with newly-diagnosed, untreated epilepsy were randomised to treatment with the antiepileptic drug selected by their physician either with or without therapeutic drug serum level monitoring as an aid to dosage adjustments. The antiepileptic drugs used were carbamazepine, valproate, phenytoin, phenobarbital and primidone. A 12-month remission from seizures was achieved by 60% of the patients randomised to therapeutic drug monitoring (intervention group) and by 61% in the control group. A total of 56% in the intervention group and 58% in the control group were seizure free during the last 12 months of follow up. Adverse effects were reported by 48% in the intervention group and 47% of the control group patients. Of those randomised to therapeutic drug monitoring, 62% completed the two-year follow up compared with 67% of the control group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no clear evidence to support routine antiepileptic drug serum concentration measurement with the aim of reaching predefined target ranges for the optimisation of treatment of patients with newly-diagnosed epilepsy with antiepileptic drug monotherapy. However, this does not exclude the possible usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring of specific antiepileptic drugs during polytherapy, in special situations or in selected patients, although evidence is lacking.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Drug Monitoring; Epilepsy; Humans; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Primidone; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 17253477
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002216.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2014Status epilepticus is a medical emergency associated with significant mortality and morbidity that requires immediate and effective treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Status epilepticus is a medical emergency associated with significant mortality and morbidity that requires immediate and effective treatment.
OBJECTIVES
(1) To determine whether a particular anticonvulsant is more effective or safer to use in status epilepticus compared to another and compared to placebo.(2) To delineate reasons for disagreement in the literature regarding recommended treatment regimens and to highlight areas for future research.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update of this review, the following electronic databases were searched on 15/08/2013: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL The Cochrane Library July 2013, Issue 7, and MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 15/08/2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of participants with premonitory, early, established or refractory status epilepticus using a truly random or quasi-random allocation of treatments were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen studies with 2755 participants were included. Few studies used the same interventions. Intravenous diazepam was better than placebo in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.92), requirement for ventilatory support (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.94), or continuation of status epilepticus requiring use of a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92). Intravenous lorazepam was better than placebo for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) and for risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71). Intravenous lorazepam was better than intravenous diazepam for reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90) and had a lower risk for continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). Intravenous lorazepam was better than intravenous phenytoin for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). Diazepam gel was better than placebo gel in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.43 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62)For pre-hospital treatment, intramuscular midazolam is at least as effective as (probably more effective than) intravenous lorazepam in control of seizures (RR1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27) and frequency of hospitalisation (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97) or intensive care admissions (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96). It was uncertain whether Intravenous valproate was better than intravenous phenytoin in reducing risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.00). Both levetiracetam and lorazepam were equally effective in aborting seizures (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.13). Results for other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies were uncertain due to single studies with few participants.The body of randomised evidence to guide clinical decisions is small. It was uncertain whether any anticonvulsant therapy was better than another in terms of adverse effects, due to few studies and participants identified. The quality of the evidence from the included studies is not strong but appears acceptable. We were unable to make judgements for risk of bias domains incomplete outcome reporting (attrition bias) and selective outcome reporting (selection bias) due to unclear reporting by the study authors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous lorazepam is better than intravenous diazepam or intravenous phenytoin alone for cessation of seizures. Intravenous lorazepam also carries a lower risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia compared with intravenous diazepam. Both intravenous lorazepam and diazepam are better than placebo for the same outcomes. For pre hospital management, midazolam IM seemed more effective than lorazepam IV for cessation of seizures, frequency of hospitalisation and ICU admissions however,it was unclear whether the risk of recurrence of seizures differed between treatments. The results of other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies versus each other were also uncertain. Universally accepted definitions of premonitory, early, established and refractory status epilepticus are required. Diazepam gel was better than placebo gel in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures. Results for other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies were uncertain due to single studies with few participants.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Diazepam; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 25207925
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003723.pub3 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam), and carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.
Topics: Adult; Amines; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Epilepsy, Generalized; Fructose; Gabapentin; Humans; Isoxazoles; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxcarbazepine; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Remission Induction; Topiramate; Triazines; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 28661008
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub2 -
Journal (Canadian Dental Association) 2011Long-term use of phenytoin (PHT) causes gingival hyperplasia; however, little is known about the oral side effects of other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Through a... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Long-term use of phenytoin (PHT) causes gingival hyperplasia; however, little is known about the oral side effects of other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Through a systematic review of the literature, we explored the effects of AEDs on the oral health of patients with epilepsy.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library between January 1963 and August 2010. The search strategy retrieved 170 abstracts. We included studies that involved original research and had ≥ 10 patients in our review. We also checked the reference lists of reviews, letters and other manuscripts to find studies that met our selection criteria.
RESULTS
Only 15 articles were included in the final analysis. Gingival hyperplasia was very common in patients taking PHT (16%-94% of patients). Alveolar bone loss occurred in patients taking carbamazepine or PHT. Patients taking valproate, carbamazepine or phenobarbital also had gingival hyperplasia. We found no published studies of newer-generation AEDs.
CONCLUSION
Although several studies examined the effects of PHT on oral health, none have studied those of the newer generation of AEDs. Studies exploring oral side effects of AEDs are needed.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Epilepsy; Gingival Hyperplasia; Humans; Oral Health; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin
PubMed: 22260801
DOI: No ID Found